Appendix I. FAQs

This page provides responses to questions and points that were raised via the consultation on the new framework. The submissions below have been edited for brevity and clarity in a standalone format.

A.

Method Classification

In classification alternative B, does there need to be something about more than one hunt bell, as there is in alternative A?

Handling of additional hunt bells isn't needed in Alternative B because this alternative always classifies a hunter based on the path of the treble bell, regardless of how many hunt bells there are. This is viewed as aligning more closely with the historic terms used -- e.g. treble bob, treble dodging and treble place. However this is now a moot point as the classification system we've moved to (which can be viewed as somewhere between Alternatives A and B) applies the hierarchical approach to hunt paths that is used in Alternative A.

It was hard to compare classification alternatives A and B. Could they be presented side by side, or the differences described point by point?

Agree they weren't easy to compare as presented -- apologies for that. As noted in our Oct 26th 2018 RW article (see Appendix G.7), we've now settled on a classification system that can be viewed as falling somewhere between Alt A and Alt B, and is the single classification section now included in this website.

However, we do plan to put together a table that compares the classifications used in the Decisions, Alt A, Alt B, and the final classification system used in the framework. We'll update this FAQ with a link to the classification comparison table when ready.

I couldn't locate the list of methods whose titles would change under classification Alt B.

Yes, apologies that this wasn't as easily located as it could have been. It's part of the Transitional Arrangements page -- see Appendix F.1. We've now also included a reference to this list in the further explanation of Section 4.A.1. Note that this list now shows the changes under the updated classification system included in this website, rather than the previous Alt B.

B.

Clarity

Somehow the term 'hunter' feels wrong, and if it is already in use I've not heard it before. If it is not in use then what is wrong with simply Hunt, or Hunt Method, which would then be consistent with Jump Method? (I presume you considered Jumper.)

The term 'hunter' is fairly recent - it was introduced in 2002 as part of the update to the Decisions that introduced differential hunters. We debated whether to use 'hunt method' instead of 'hunter', and possibly also 'differential method' instead of 'differential'. But the one-word versions are useful (e.g. when wanting conciseness on a web page) so the consensus was to keep 'hunter' and 'differential'. But we drew the line at 'jumper', given its other meanings.

Is the definition of Hunting correct (see Section 4.A.7)? Wouldn't this result in a point at the extremities of the rows, rather than a place?

We intend Hunting, as a standalone term, to mean hunting in a single direction (i.e. either hunting up or hunting down). The main use of hunting is in the definition of a Place method, in which the paths of all the bells consist only of Hunting and Making Places.

This is distinct from a Plain Hunt Path (or Plain Hunting Path), which consists of hunting up, making a place, hunting down and making another place. While Plain Hunt Path isn't a term we needed to define for use elsewhere, we've now included this term in the further explanation of the Plain Method class definition (see Section 4.D.1).

How about a picture of a lead of a method with Leadend, Leadhead, Halflead, etc highlighted? Same with dodging places.

Good suggestions -- a diagram showing the Leadend, Leadhead, Halflead Change and Leadend Change has now been added (see Section 4.A.12). A diagram showing dodging places has also been added (see Section 4.A.15).

There seems to be a tendency in ringing and in business to introduce a new vocabulary which the older practitioners find difficult to understand, so perhaps a glossary of terms might be given somewhere. Reports of peals in the RW now refer to cyclical and particles and it would be helpful to the rank and file ringers if these terms could be explained.

The framework does define the ringing terms it uses as they are introduced. However, we've only defined the terms that are needed across the framework. We don't view the framework as the right place to house an extensive glossary of ringing terms -- this would turn an already-complex document into an even more complex one. However an extensive glossary of ringing terms already exists here.

There appears to be a pretty much random use of capital letters inconsistent with the conventional use of English.

Words have been capitalised in the framework where they are specialist ringing terms that are defined elsewhere in the framework. This was previously noted in Section 2, which has become Appendix E, so we've now added this note to Section 1 to make it more prominent. A better approach might be to italicise the words rather than capitalise them, and make them hyperlinks to the definitions in question (which also gives the option of presenting them underlined or in a different color). There is various scope overall for improving the appearance of the framework website -- this is on the list of items to consider for a subsequent version of the framework, including how best to highlight defined terms.

I note the term Identity change -- why not use Identical?

Identity was chosen because it's used in mathematics to denote an operation that, when applied to an input, produces an output that is the same as the input. E.g. the identity for addition is zero, because n + 0 = n. In change ringing, we apply a change to a row in order to produce a new row, so it's consistent to call the change that results in a new row that's the same as the previous row the identity change. 'Null change' has also been used in the past for the identity change. A discussion about this in the ringing-theory email group indicated a preference for identity over null.

In section 2C you use 'Length' & 'Stage' as defined terms but they have not yet been defined above. I understand them but the majority of my local band wouldn’t.

Agreed. To give a better structure to the framework, we've now moved the former Section 2 to Appendix E (Framework Development). This also solves the ordering issue that you raise.

I’m not sure the layman would understand the difference in the definitions of Block & Method. The further explanation helps but the actual definition is almost identical.

The are various terms in method ringing that have similar meanings (e.g. touch and composition), as well as terms that have more than one meaning (e.g. lead can refer to ringing in 1st's place or a lead of a method). We've tried to distinguish similar terms as best we can: We view a method as just the sequence of changes, without considering the rows that the method can be used to generate.
A block, on the other hand, results from applying a sequence of changes (i.e. a method or a composition) to a starting row (normally rounds). A block therefore comprises a set of rows and the changes used to generate them.
A method can be viewed as the process, and a block as the result of the process.
Related to these terms, a touch is a block generated by a composition, and a plain lead and a plain course are blocks generated by a single method without any calls.

Pictures would help the understanding of the symmetry definitions (section 4.B).

Good suggestion. These have now been added. See Section 4.B.3.

Have a much simpler section which explains standard method ringing so that ordinary ringers can see how to talk and write about what they do. Then put all the strange exotic stuff at the back. This document is too long and complex for any ordinary ringer to read, and not sufficiently precise, nor using the right mathematical terms, to be usefully referenced from a mathematical paper.

We considered this, but the difficulty is that there will be lots of different views on where to draw the line between vanilla and exotic. This approach could also make it harder for readers to find the information they're looking for.

Also, the framework exists to be able to describe all method ringing and is not intended as an introductory primer to method ringing -- there are other publications that provide this.

The framework is also intentionally not a mathematical paper. Although not an introductory primer, it should be accessible to as many ringers as possible. However, we are considering adding a new section to a subsequent version of the framework that describes method ringing in mathematical terms (with development of this led by a ringing mathematician). This could then by used by mathematicians -- e.g. to reference in an academic paper.

I was unclear about the use of stage at various points in the framework. There seem to be requirements of various terms to be all 'of the same stage' which did not make sense to my mind as it precluded blocks/compositions of spliced triples and major (given the commonplace understanding of the term 'stage'). However, an explanation is found hidden away in explanatory notes for cover bells. I think that something should be done to enable a clearer understanding of this concept in the main text, especially as various sections of the explanatory notes relate; not everything is one place. (I also do not understand why Plain Bob Doubles/Plain Bob Minor rung side by side on 12 produces Maximus changes as there are 11 bells affected by the method – so surely this would be cinques changes as per the example given elsewhere of Plain Bob Minor/Plain Bob Cinques rung side by side).

A few people commented that the use of 'stage' in the framework wasn't clear, and/or that the information on 'stage' is too fragmented across the framework.

Because stage is a concept that applies to various other concepts (rows, changes, blocks, methods and compositions), organising the information can become circular (e.g. the definition of method involves stage, but defining stage without referring to a method can be too abstract). To address this, we've created a short document that covers all aspects of stage in one place. The framework now links to this document wherever stage is defined, i.e. in the definition of Row (3.B.1), Change (3.C.1), Block (3.D.1), Method (3.E.1), Composition (3.G.1) and Cover Bell (3.H.1), as well as in the initial definition of Stage itself (3.A.1).

On the question about Doubles / Minor rung side by side on 12 bells, this would indeed normally result in Cinques changes, which could then be rung (say) with the 12th as a cover bell. But in the example in the technical comment of 3.H.1, the Doubles is being rung on bells 1-5, and the Minor is being ruing on bells 7-12, with 6th's place containing a cover bell. For practical purposes (e.g. when entering changes into a proving program), the changes would most likely be specified as Maximus changes, with a place notation of '6' included in every change. But the effective stage of the block produced by these changes would still be Cinques (assuming there are no other fixed places).

3.J.4 states that the final row should be excluded in calculating truth in a round block. I wondered if it should be the 1st row as if you start a touch in rounds, the first change takes you to the first non-rounds touch of the composition; therefore is the initial row really part of the composition? There are probably good reasons, however, why this is not the case which I have not appreciated.

We had quite a lengthy debate on this point when drafting the framework. The reality is that when determining the truth of a round block, you can exclude either the initial row or the final row (these two rows being the same). We felt that using either/or language throughout the framework would be a little cumbersome, so decided to standardise on including the initial row and excluding the final row. This approach often aligns with the symmetry of what is being rung, and also, in spliced compositions, the atw (all-the-work) property is determined based on a lead starting with the leadhead and finishing with the leadend, rather than one row later (this avoids possible missed rows due to calls). But in practice the other approach will also be useful. E.g. when judging a striking competition, if the rules call for not judging the opening and closing rounds, the judge probably won't know the touch has started until she hears a non-rounds row. So in this scenario, it would make sense to exclude the initial row and include the final row for judging purposes.

I felt that 3.K.3 was a little ambiguous in the term 'same set of Methods'. I assume this means a record lengths for spliced. I am unclear at what level the set of methods is defined, stage, or stage and method class.

Yes, 'same set of methods' is referring to multi-method performances (which are often, but not always, spliced). A method is always defined at the level of its method title. For example, Cambridge Surprise Minor and Cambridge Surprise Major are not the same method -- they are two different methods that are related (via a method extension process). Similarly Yorkshire Surprise Major and Yorkshire Delight Major are also two different methods -- ones that happen to share the same method name. We've amended 9.B.1 to clarify the above, and have also added that variations can also be used to generate a unique set of methods / variations with which to ring a record length.

I am not sure if I would have classified a 'Little Path' in 4.A.6. As far as I know it refers only to hunt bells, but that section read on its own would suggest 2nds Place Bell Bristol is a Little Path. I would probably have just used the wording or similar in the relevant sections about Little Methods.

A good point, and one that generated some debate among the framework team. We ended up thinking that a little path doesn't need to be confined to hunt bells, though we agree that's the most common usage. We've now added a paragraph to the further explanation of 4.A.6 clarifying this.

I note that nowhere is there a definition of 'Method Class' or 'Method Class Descriptor'. Sections 4 and 5 merely describe what they are. I wondered if these terms warranted an explanation somewhere.

Method Class is in fact defined -- see 4.A.1. We didn't think that Method Class Descriptor needed a separate, formal definition because the dictionary definition of Descriptor applies. We therefore went straight to defining how Method Class Descriptors are formed (5.B.1). As a general rule for the framework, we haven't defined terms where the normal dictionary definition of the word suffices.

I find it odd that 6.B.1(e) requires that the performance Report includes whether the performance was rung on towerbells or handbells. This fact is not included in the report and the explanatory notes suggest that this is indicated by the way in which items are submitted to Bellboard (other means of submitting performance reports are available). I know this is a linguistic point, but the report does not include this fact.

We were thinking here of handbell performances where each ringer only rings one bell. While these are rung infrequently, we wanted the framework to be able to accurately describe them if they are rung. BellBoard today has one form for one-bell-per-ringer, and another form for two-bells-per-ringer. A one-bell-per-ringer handbell performance could therefore look like a tower bell performance, so 6.B.1 e) gives a requirement to footnote that such a performance was on handbells. We've now edited 6.B.1 to include this point. The same issue might apply to a tower bell performance where each ringer rang two bells. But this would likely be posted on BellBoard with the name of each ringer entered twice against two bells, so the report would be clear as to what was rung.

I was surprised that the definition of spliced was reserved to the performance section; surely a composition can be described as spliced as well as the performance. It seems to appear too late in the framework in my opinion.

Yes we agree, and a good point. We've now defined spliced as part of 3.G (Compositions), and then stated that a performance title includes 'spliced' if the performance included ringing a spliced composition.

I am not sure I agree with the reporting standards and the examples given. Most QPs of spliced/mixed include the number of methods in the report, thereby taking, in the new definition, the performance title and part of the performance detail. I further note in peal databases (e.g. peals.co.uk) they are listed e.g. Spliced S Major (14). Would it not be better to require the number of methods to be part of the performance title where more than one method is rung?

Yes agreed -- multi-method performances posted on BellBoard often include the number of methods in the performance title. We've now updated 6.A to cover this, but made it optional as to where the number of methods is put, noting that The Ringing World still includes this in the performance detail.

Section 9.2 refers to Variable Cover records; I can find no definition of what variable cover means in the framework, although references are made in various parts of the explanatory material, but do not use this term, apart from in the reporting examples.

Agreed. We've now added a definition of variable cover as part of 3.H (Cover Bells). Like spliced, variable cover is an attribute of a composition, so we've also now stated that a performance title includes 'variable cover' if the performance included ringing a variable cover composition.

Although the meaning is clear at all times in your text, I feel that there is a potential for misunderstanding in the use of the word 'extent'. It is commonly used to mean (eg on 5) 'all 120 possible changes rung consecutively'. Thus 'call two extents of Grandsire Doubles' would widely be interpreted to mean calling a 120 then another 120 immediately following, while a 240 that has each row once at hand and once at back would more often be called a 'double-extent'. But in your usage this 240 could be called 'two extents' as each change occurs twice, but the two extents are intertwined. You seem to anticipate this possible confusion by adding the clarifying remark 'The location of individual Rows within a Block of Rows does not have any bearing on truth.' Good - but I feel there is still a need to point out these two different possible interpretations of the word 'extent' - or maybe have two different words??? Not sure what the solution is.

We agree ringing hasn't evolved clear terminology to differentiate between a round block comprising two extents (where the rows can appear in any order), and two individual extents rung consecutively. Where terminology like this hasn't evolved, it usually means that either the distinction often isn't important, or the distinction can be made using ordinary dictionary words (such as 'two individual extents rung consecutively' as above.) We've now updated 3.J.1 to point out the possibly ambiguity, and noted that care should be taken with communication where this distinction is important.

The blocks were introduced early, but the counting of rows / changes gets a bit confusing especially without round blocks.

Yes, blocks are introduced early (3.D) but this is deliberate. We tried many different ways of organising the information to minimise the number of forward references needed, and give the most intuitive groupings of terms, and we found that introducing blocks before methods, calls, compositions and cover bells gave the best results.

The count of changes is the same regardless of whether the block is round or not. But when determining truth (which is a function of rows), the final row of a non-round block is included in the test, whereas for a round block it's excluded.

Truth also appears in 2.B.6 then with accepted truth. Truth to me really means no row repeated. Complete means every possible row at least once. We then later allow repeats to get touches longer than the extent, and adjust truth accordingly.

We're now reordered the framework so that the references to truth and accepted truth that were in 2.B.6 are now in Appendix E (Framework Development). This gives a better ordering of the information.

There can be many different ways to apply truth (e.g. in a 240 of Doubles, each row appearing once at handstroke and once at backstroke might be considered 'more true' than a 240 where each row simply appears twice). In the interests of simplicity, we felt it would be valuable to have a single definition of truth that applies to all stages and all lengths, hence the definition used in 3.J.4. While 'complete' is a reasonably-well-known term for describing a block that contains each possible row at least once, we found we didn't need 'complete' to define any other term or requirement in the framework, so in the interests of simplicity, we didn't include 'complete' as a defined term.

3.D.1. 'Block: A sequence of Changes, all with the same Stage, and the Rows produced by applying these Changes, starting from an initial Row.' So it is both the changes and the rows?

Yes, both the changes and the rows. A block results from applying a given sequence of changes to an initial row. While in practice, most ringing uses rounds as the initial row, a different block could be obtained from the same sequence of changes by using a different initial row. The two blocks' changes would be the same, but their rows would be different.

I do not understand the intention of 5.D.5.

5.D.5 says 'Variations are incorporated into Compositions, including Spliced and Variable Cover Compositions, in the same way as Methods.'

3.G.1 defines composition in terms of method(s). To be fully precise, we ought to define composition in terms of both methods and variations. But because it would be cumbersome to use 'methods / variations' or similar in multiple places in the framework, we just used 'methods', and 5.D.5 then serves to expand the other references to also include variations.

Note that a variation isn't a composition -- it's the use of a method with certain, defined call(s). You still need a composition to specify how to use this method and its defined call(s).

2.C.2: What is length - is it changes or different rows? Currently changes as we start and end in rounds. But if rows - would ringing 5000 rows of major from pull-off and not finishing in rounds be a peal length? Probably not as defined as changes later.

(Note that the former section 2 has now been moved to become part of Appendix E.)
Yes, 5000 rows rung in total (from pull-off to stand) could only ever be a maximum of 4999 changes (and less if there are opening or closing rounds), so not a peal length. Length is always the number of changes, not the number of rows (see 3.I.2), and the number of changes is not affected by whether or not the rows are a round block.

3.A.1. Mention exclude 'nonuples' even though it is in some dictionaries.

We retained Octuples (stage 17) primarily because a peal of Octuples has been rung (this is the highest odd-stage peal rung to date). We didn't think nonuples was in the ringers' lexicon to the extent its absence needed to be explained, especially since even stages switch to English numbering starting at stage 14.

'3.B.1 A sequence of numbered bells in which no bell appears more than once.' I don't like that as it allows bells to be omitted. Something like this would be better: A sequence of numbered bells in which each bell appears exactly once.

The problem with the suggested definition is that 'each bell' is undefined. E.g. does it mean 'each bell in the tower' or even (to make a point) 'each bell in England'? The defining feature of a row is that no bell appears more than once, regardless of which bells do appear. When rows are combined into blocks, there is then an additional constraint that every row in the block comprises the same set of bells. This follows from the definition of change as a transposition. We've now added to the further explanations of 3.C.1 and 3.D.1 to clarify this point.

3.C.1 I don't like Change for identity and jump changes - as that breaks the historic meaning, but using 'permutation' or 'generalised change' would make other definitions look messy.
Need to make clear that change is the general transform, not the actual row to other row themselves. Perhaps needs an example:
123456
214365
is the same as
346125
431652

Agreed on looking messy. In practice, we don't expect identity and jump changes to be rung frequently, so in normal usage 'adjacent change' will be abbreviated to just 'change' and the meaning will be clear from the context.

On the second point, the explanation for 3.C.1 includes an example that shows that a change is a general transform that can be applied to any row.

3.F.1 Can you have dynamic calls? E.g. is the call of 'rounds', a possibly jump change call, a dynamic call?

We haven't included dynamic calls as a separate type of call as their use seems unlikely. They could be added to a future version of the framework if compositions emerge that use them, and if having a central definition of dynamic calls is thought to aid ringers in communicating about method ringing.

Is a call part of a method? E.g. ringing 14 instead of 12 in Cambridge surprise Major doesn't affect the number of changes of Cambridge. What about ringing 18 - is that one change of Primrose Surprise, or Original, or Bristol Surprise?

Calls are separate from methods, in the sense that a given call can be used with many different methods, and many different calls can be used with a single method. However, when reporting the number of changes rung of a given method in a performance, the count includes those changes that were modifications to the method's changes resulting from calls. The explanation for 3.F.1 provides more detail.

Ringing a 18 change as the leadend change in Cambridge S Major is an example of the well-known problem of overlap in describing method ringing. The same set of changes can be described in many different ways, and there's no satisfactory way of eliminating this overlap. Ringers therefore use their judgement in deciding which is the most appropriate way to describe a given set of changes. A 18 leadend change in Cambridge could be described as a composition of spliced Cambridge and Primrose, or the 18 change could be described as an additional call in a Cambridge composition.

3.I.2 With whole pull Plain Bob Minor (identity change), do you count the identity changes?

An extent of Plain Bob Minor with each row rung at handstroke and backstroke before moving to the next row could be reported as 1440 Plain Bob Minor, thereby counting the identity changes. This would be a true performance. Alternatively, the performance could be reported as 720 Plain Bob Minor with a disclosure added, per 6.C.2 n), explaining the whole pull ringing. Either approach would be valid and it is left to ringers to use their best judgement in deciding how to report. Note that reporting 1440 changes would give a more expected alignment with the reported time of the performance. Also note that at higher stages, whole pull ringing would almost certainly be false, leading to a disclosure under 6.C.2 b).

"Technical comments: As discussed above under Compositions (Section 3.G), it is possible for a Composition to use two or more Methods side by side, or to use two or more Compositions side by side. As a further variation, a Composition might also result in an interior Cover Bell. For example, a Composition might be designed to be used with Maximus Rows, using a Doubles Method in Places 1 to 5 and a Minor Method in Places 7 to 12. 6th's Place does not have any Methods operating on it, and therefore 6th's Place contains a Cover Bell. In this case, the Composition would produce Maximus Changes (and therefore have a Stage of Maximus), and each of its Changes would include the place notation '6'."
I read that as being an Effective Stage of Cinques.
I guess with fixed bells in the middle you could use jump changes to swap bells from the front to the back.

Yes to both. The effective stage is Cinques (even though the composition has a stage of Maximus), and jump changes could be used to jump between, say, 5th's place and 7th's place, thereby leaving 6th's place as an interior cover bell.

I have never met any ringer who thought a change was anything other than an order of all the bells being rung. You do not need a name for the transition from one to another.
I have never heard the term stage before, I assume this refers to doubles major etc., why not just write number of changing bells or NCB if that is too long.
You do not define lead especially when it is used in reference to principles. To me principles do not have leads.

On your first point, 'row' and 'change' have indeed been used interchangeably over the years to refer to what the framework describes as a 'row'. In the earliest ringing publications the term 'change' was used to cover both the process of moving the bells and the resulting sequence. However, by the late 1800s, technical writers needed to split the process from the result, and these terms became 'row' and 'change'. E.g. from 'A Note on Grandsire Triples', W.H. Thompson, Macmillan and Bowes, 1886, page 7: 'Any one permutation of the 7 bells is called a 'row'. The Decisions have been making the distinction between a row and change since at least 1970.

As with many terms, this distinction has not been made consistently, either in common parlance or ringing literature. To address this, we've added the following to Section 3.B.1:
'Note that what is defined as a Row in this section is sometimes described as a Change in common ringing parlance, and this usage of Change will be found in some method ringing books and articles. The framework separately uses Change as the transition between two Rows (see Section 3.C) and this distinction between Row and Change is important in defining a number of other method ringing terms used in the framework. Row is the preferred term wherever possible.'

We do need a term for the transition between rows because these are the building blocks for methods and compositions. E.g. Plain Bob Minor comprises the changes x16x16x16x16x16x12 -- here it's clear that changes are referring to transitions, and not to an order of bells. In a composition, a bob might replace a 12 change with a 14 change, and so on.

On your second point, stage does refer to Doubles, Major, etc. It's an established term -- e.g. used in the Decisions since at least 1970.

Finally, principles do have leads in the same way as any other method. We often don't think of them this way, probably because the most well-known principle (Stedman) lends itself to being thought of in sixes, where we don't even normally start and finish at a six-end. But the same lead structure is there (Stedman has 12 changes in a lead), and if you look at other principles (e.g. Double Éire Minor) the lead structure is more apparent.

Not considering principles to have leads is also partly historic. Principles used not to be considered methods, and were said to be made up of divisions rather than leads. But the Decisions have considered principles to be methods since at least 1970. Between 1970 and 1999 the Decisions referred to principles being made up of divisions or leads. In 1999, division was dropped. Consequently the framework drafting team have seen no reason to retain the term division when lead is sufficient, and using one term for all methods is simpler.

C.

Permissiveness

I would query whether it is necessary to restrict Doubles variations to those capable of producing a single extent round block (5.D.4). If methods false in the plain course are permitted, why can't a variation that cannot produce a true 120? Considering the rest of the framework, this seems somewhat prescriptive. There are Doubles variations that have been rung and named already for which a 120 is not possible, but a 240 can be rung (e.g. Heterodox Doubles: Plain Bob with a New Bob bob).

Yes, good point -- we agree this goes against our descriptive / permissive mandate (it was copied over from the current Decisions with insufficient scrutiny). We have now removed this requirement.

I think that it is slightly odd that jump changes are added, but are then also added to the list of items to be mentioned in performance reports as not conforming to the norms.

In line with our descriptive / permissive mandate, we've included jump changes in the framework so that if they're rung, there is terminology to describe them. But since jump changes have not been the norm in method ringing, we want their use to be clear in performance reports. Since methods that include jump changes will have 'Jump' in their method titles, additional disclosure is therefore only needed when (a) jump calls are used with non-jump methods, and (b) variations with jump changes are used (variations don't use class descriptors in their titles). This is outlined in the further explanation of Section 6.C.2.

I would urge the proponents of these changes to tread very carefully indeed. History shows that when traditional and ingrained systems are swept away, those who are not prepared to put up with it will break away from the existing structures and form their own traditional groups. Anglicanism is a good example where there are now thousands of traditionalists broken away from Lambeth throughout the world. An alternative Council of Traditional English Change Ringers would be a disaster for the art given the challenges to ringing posed by on-going collapse of the Church of England.

The Decisions have been a source of controversy since the formation of the Council, and many believe the Decisions' approach of ruling out ringing that hasn't been done before has harmed the Council's reputation, especially among more advanced ringers. The motion to switch to a descriptive / permissive approach passed with a very clear majority at the Edinburgh CC meeting.

However we recognise that traditionalists won't like all the forms of method ringing that the framework describes. The framework uses a disclosure approach so that performances that differ from method ringing norms can be identified as such.

There is also, deliberately, nothing in the framework that prevents a group of traditionalist ringers from forming a society (which could become affiliated with the Central Council) that implements additional restrictions on what it considers methods or peals. For example, this society might choose only to recognise peals of Triples and below that are rung in whole extents, and only that involve methods that are principles or are hunters with Plain Bob or Grandsire leadheads / leadends.

Ultimately ringers with a wide range of opinions have to find ways to coexist with one another, and we believe that a descriptive / permissive approach, paired with disclosure and the ability of like-minded ringers to group together to focus on the types of ringing they're interested in, is the most likely way to achieve this.

I think that what we should strive to avoid is offending against first principles of change ringing that have been established for centuries. Thus I cannot support the introduction of jump changes and multiple covering bells in peals. The peal is a benchmark of achievement and there is no case for allowing people who can barely handle a bell in Rounds to follow another bell for three hours in the pretense that they are now a peal ringer. Extra covering bells have a place in Quarters to give rope-time to learners, but not in peal ringing. If this is permitted we will soon see a peal of Minimus rung on 12 with 8 covering bells which would bring our art into disrepute.

It appears from what has been published that a recordable peal could now be rung on 1 and 2 bells. That is a nonsense. However what I do want to see, and have advocated for many years is the acceptance of Singles. I do not see a case for saying that a band who have worked away at a probably rough 3 for nearly three hours have not rung a Peal. Singles should be the basic minimum stage for change ringing.

I am much concerned that ringing is going to join the Gadarene rush to abolish all standards so as to be 'more inclusive'. The abolition of traditional standards is a disease. Ringing should work towards improving standards, not abolishing them to placate the PC brigade.

Much Central Council time was taken up debating whether 4-bell peals should be recognised. We could clearly spend more time debating whether 3-bell peals should be recognised, and then 2-bell peals. Similarly, we could spend much time in the future debating whether jump changes and multiple cover bells should be recognised. With the CRAG mandate, the Council has decided this is not a good approach. The mandate was very clear -- the aim of the framework is to be permissive and describe what ringers choose to ring, rather than specifying rules over what the Council will and will not recognise. This is a direct response by the Council to the recognition that the previous system hasn't worked well, has caused much controversy, and has harmed the Council's reputation, obscuring much of its other good work. It's now time to try something new -- namely to provide standard terminology for ringers to describe what they rang, and leave it to them to decide what they want to ring.

The aim of trying to use the framework to enforce ringing standards (i.e. quality) is also misguided in our view. Standards vary widely by band and location, and a one-size-fits-all central approach will inevitably result in the bar being set too high for some and too low for others. Encouraging improved ringing quality is better addressed at the local level, with the Central Council possibly providing guidance / tips, and/or promoting training events and similar.

Method ringing should alter the order of the bells at every row.

This is the question of whether the identity change should be recognised. For example, an extent of Plain Bob Doubles can be turned into a true 240 by calling a single with place notation 12345 at two points 120 changes apart. This 240 has the nice feature of every row appearing once at handstroke and once at backstroke.

Since a 12345 change results in every bell staying in the same place from one row to the next, it is the identity change for Doubles. Given there are valid uses of identity changes, as shown in the example above, and that our mandate is to be permissive and descriptive, we believe identity changes should be covered in the framework. It is then up to individual ringers and bands to decide whether they want to make use of them.

'Simple and permissive descriptive framework for ringing with only the minimal detail required to maintain the historical record.' I don't think this is achievable or particularly desirable goal as simplification and permissiveness actually leads to more complication explaining ordinary ringing.

This is the mandate we were given, which was decided by a very clear majority vote of the Central Council, and the framework team believes it was the right mandate. However, it's certainly correct that increasing permissiveness does also increase complexity, and there's a limit to how simple you can make a method ringing framework (we've interpreted the mandate as being to make the framework as simple as possible).

The framework aims to cover all types of method ringing so it isn't designed as a primer for new ringers, though we've tried to make it accessible to as many ringers as possible. Ringing authors might develop or update guides (e.g. for new / developing ringers) that just cover the parts of the framework that relate to what is more commonly rung.

3.H.1 Does this allow continuously leading bells? In major could you have a method with a fixed bell leading, but considered as part of the method?

Yes to both. The former is described in the further explanation of 3.H.1. The latter is an example of the well-known problem of overlap in describing method ringing. You could describe a continuously leading bell in 8-bell rows as a leading cover bell rung with a Triples method, or as a Major method with a stationary bell in 1st's place. A leading cover bell with a Triples method might be the simpler description of what was rung, but if there was also a stationary bell in, say, 5th's place, and both stationary bells were affected by calls, thereby changing the stationary bells, the changes might be better described as a composition of a Major method. Ringers therefore use their judgement to decide how best to describe a given set of changes.

Perhaps the online version of The Ringing World could change reports to match the reader's wishes. E.g. if you don't agree with jump changes, you could filter out any performances that used them.

The purpose of 6.C (performance norms) is to make ringers aware when performances include features that differ from common practice. It will, of course, be for The Ringing World to decide if and how to make use of this information, but it could indeed potentially be used to let readers filter out certain types of performances that they're not interested in reading about.

It's also a bit silly to ring partial extents of minor, doubles, etc even if you do want a funny number in the peal report. I wouldn't stop someone from doing it, but I don't want to see it reported as a peal, or on a peal board.

The change to recognise partial extents was made in 2016, passing with a large Central Council majority, so this isn't something new in the framework. To not recognise partial extents goes against the permissive and descriptive elements of the framework mandate, which was also passed by a large Central Council majority.

2.A.1 There is an assumption in this that all ringing can be defined in terms of methods and I believe this to be wrong. The term `method' should have a very specific meaning and what should be described is change ringing which is the general term for what we do. Proposal H did not mention methods. Throughout the framework there is undue mention of methods where it should be change ringing.
The definition of a method seems to be virtually identical to a block.
The definitions used are not ones which would be understandable or recognisable to an ordinary ringer. There seems far too much emphasis on mathematical concepts rather than practical ringing. For instance `the identity change' is not a change in the terminology of ringing it is simply a repeated row. I'm afraid this framework does not do what the Council asked for and needs a fundamental reevaluation; the present team and reviewers have too many people from a computing and mathematical background and seem out of touch with practical ringing in the wider world.

Many ringers would agree with the idea that a method should have a more limited meaning than just any sequence of changes. The problem is that this falls into the category of "sounds good, doesn't work". In over 100 years of trying, the ringing community hasn't found a limited definition of 'method' that is widely agreed upon. Some of the harshest battles in 20th century ringing related to the definition of a method. E.g. see the book 'Forbidden Methods' by Karl Grave (2010, published by The Whiting Society of Ringers) where some methods were described as 'illegitimate' or even 'bastards'. And see here for a more recent dispute over the definition of a method.

Progress comes from learning from the past. Since there is no practicable way of limiting the definition of a method without also ruling out sensible cases, the only solution is to enable any sequence of changes to be named as a method. This is what the framework does, and it's also consistent with our permissive / descriptive mandate. We trust that ringers will be sensible in what they choose to name as methods. And if they're not sensible, Section 5.E.3 of the framework contains an anti-abuse provision.

On Method vs Block, we've now added additional explanation to 3.E.1 on the difference between these two terms. The distinction is key -- a method is the process (i.e. the changes) and a block is the result of applying the process (i.e. the changes plus the rows produced, given a specified starting row).

We recognise the problem of self-selection in a project like this. The sort of people who are interested in becoming politicians are often the last people you want running a country, and the same may be true of people who volunteer to develop a method ringing framework. The only responses we can give are:
(1) We've been very conscious of the need to keep things as simple as possible. Many solutions that were more elegant or more purist were ruled out of the framework because we decided they were too complex to include.
(2) The framework isn’t intended as a primer on method ringing for people new to the Exercise – there are other publications that capably meet that need. The intended audience for the framework starts at the level of ringers who are already familiar with the basics of method ringing.
(3) To be effective, the framework needs to be able to describe all reasonably foreseeable forms of method ringing, not just 'everyday' ringing. Otherwise it's not a framework -- it's a limited description of some common forms of method ringing. We don't believe that's what the Central Council intended. We don't dispute that covering all foreseeable forms of method ringing means there is some complexity to the framework. But we think we've simplified things about as much as is possible, and we deliberately included lots of examples, diagrams and explanations to try and make things as clear as possible.

At the same time, we're open to any suggestions on how the framework could be simplified. There will be subsequent versions of the framework, which will give the opportunity for new ideas to be considered.

I’m not terribly knowledgeable technically, so I have just one comment. I understand that the proposed framework would permit jump changes. If that is so, then I disagree with it for two chief reasons. First, agree with it or not, one of the things that has always distinguished change ringing is its incrementalism. Change ringing patterns have been defined by very few rules, but one of them is that a bell can move only one place in the row. This means that change ringing is a restrictive musical form—but what of that? It simply means that we find enjoyment in working within a narrow musical field—one that shows that great changes can be accomplished incrementally, over time. An analogy in poetry would be to the sonnet. The sonnet is extremely well defined and has been that way for centuries. Why change it? Or at least, if you write a poem in a different structure, why not concede that the result may be a very good poem, but it is not a sonnet? And really, does that matter so much—unless perchance we are counting sonnets that we have recited? Second, I think that moving only one place in a row is a safety consideration. If you encourage methods that include jump changes, then there will be more stays lost, more limbs broken, and more embarrassing press coverage of ringers being lowered out of towers by stretcher, crane, or helicopter. The Church and its insurers will start asking questions. All this should be avoided. For these reasons I would respectfully suggest that if leading theoreticians want to ring jump changes, then those methods and compositions should simply be among the things that are deemed noncompliant. Nothing prevents people from trying to accomplish them, from celebrating those accomplishments, or from counting them as peals in their personal totals. But jump changes lack official CCCBR imprimatur and so the Exercise can say that they are not typical of what we do. Let’s not break something, only then to find out the very good reasons why it has held its current form for centuries.

We agree that incrementalism and working within a restricted space is a key attraction of method ringing. The difficulty, and where your analogy breaks down, is that if someone writes a poem that is not a sonnet, it is still a poem. If we say jump changes are not method ringing, what are they? We don't have a term. And even if we invented a new term, many would object because they consider jump changes to be part of method ringing, and we would be trying to tell them otherwise.

That's why we introduced the term 'adjacent change' -- to provide a subset term (like sonnet) that enables ringers to describe a piece of ringing that only used traditional changes, should they wish to emphasise this.

We think your safety concerns on jump changes are a little overstated. If you ring at a 4-bell tower, you have to move your bell further for an adjacent change than you do for a 2-place jump when ringing on 10-bells. The risks of jump changes seem far lower than those involved when, say, teaching someone to ring, ringing bells down, or even walking down a narrow or steep tower spiral staircase.

Furthermore, ringing safety is better addressed at the local level -- a one-size-fits-all restriction at the Central Council level isn't appropriate. Some towers have experienced ringers who will have no difficulty executing jump changes. Other towers have beginners who will need close supervision even when ringing adjacent changes.

On the subject of jump changes: The new framework has done an excellent job of allowing the flexibility for bands and composers to explore a multitude of constructs and so it would seem to me to be inconsistent for jump changes to be excluded simply because they have not been part of the traditional framework. I do agree that unfettered inclusion could lead to some bizarre results and so the challenge is to provide a little bit of structure and then see what happens. My proposal is to follow the principal that the primary objective is to allow people to describe accurately what they ring. To do this we should start by saying that changes are classified as jump-n. Normal methods are jump-1 (i.e. no bell changes more than one place) but obviously by extension we could define a jump-2 method and so on. It would also be helpful to define whether we have a jump method or are using jump calls. A standard method with jump bobs might be an interesting idea, not everyone's cup of tea but if it allowed better compositions in methods with a lot of falseness it might get some traction. I don't think the reservation that bands might claim a performance by claiming 'Go rounds' is of any concern. At the end of the day we rely on the honesty of bands and conductors to report what was done and not everyone has the same standards with the rules we've got so to say we are not allowing something because we can't trust people to use it responsibly is not the way to go!

We agree with all your points. The purpose of the framework is to provide terminology to describe what ringers choose to ring, not to try and impose limits -- that was our permissive / descriptive mandate. Your jump-n notation is a good suggestion -- it would be interesting to see in a performance report involving jump changes what the size of the jumps were. We haven't included this notation in the first version of the framework given that jump changes are rarely rung, but we've tabled this for consideration in a future version of the framework.

D.

Call Changes

Shouldn't the new framework also cover call change ringing?

Change ringing can be viewed as having two separate branches: method ringing and call change ringing. (The term 'call changes' is probably a simplification of what originally may have been 'called changes'.) When looking at how the framework (and previously the Decisions) supports method ringing, one finds that call change ringing doesn't require the same support. There's no central library of call change callings, no tradition of publishing call change performances, or ringing record lengths of call changes, and no practice of classifying call changes or extending sets of call changes to give related sets at higher stages. While there's no reason why the above couldn't develop, it hasn't to date.

For the reasons above, and also so we can keep our focus on implementing the framework for method ringing sooner rather than later, we therefore don't propose to include a description of call change ringing in the framework at this stage. However, there may be a case for adding this in a subsequent version of the framework if the ringing community thinks this would be useful. Alternatively, a separate framework for call change ringing could be developed. In either case, this should be led by specialists in the call changes field.

E.

Method Naming

I notice in the MicroSiril library that Baldrickdifferentiallittlebob is included in the Plain library. Where is it in the CCCBR library?

In CompLib it can be found here. In the text files at https://methods.cccbr.org.uk, it appears in the Plain file. While there's a separate file for Differentials, this only includes differentials without hunt bells. Differential hunters are included with the corresponding classes of non-differential hunters.

5.E/F: Existing methods should retain their old names as well as there new names. It should be valid to publish performances using either name. New methods should not use old names.

We think it would be too confusing and complicated to have (a) methods reported using more than one name, and (b) the previous name of a method whose name has been changed (e.g. due to a classification change that resulted in a naming conflict) to be reserved against future use. We think a better approach is for the methods library to be able to record alternative names by which certain methods are known, and for these names to be searchable within the library.

In any case, we only expect a very small number of methods to require a name change under the framework (see Appendix F.1). Some methods will get a new title (= name + class + stage) because of classification changes, but the vast majority of these will keep the same method name.

Relating to method titles changing under a revised classification system, what happens, for example, if you rename Champion Surprise Major to Champion Major? Can someone then create a new Champion Surprise Major, or is that name now dead?

As per the previous question, we don't propose to restrict re-use of a name where a method that previously used the name has been retitled. We do propose keeping a record of alternative / historical names used for methods in the methods library where appropriate.

How are spaces in method names treated? Is 'London No 3' different from 'Londonno3'? I guess not, but can't see how the algorithm mentioned removes spaces.

Item 4 of Appendix B (Method Name Syntax) describes the process for determining whether two method names are considered the same. The aim of this process is to prevent method names being so similar that they could easily be confused. E.g. London No. 3 and London No 3 would be considered the same under this process. However, the process doesn't go as far as eliminating all spaces between other characters. Multiple spaces are reduced to a single space, but a single space is considered different from no space. London No 3 would therefore be considered different from Londonno3. There are already examples of this in the method library -- for example, Whitehall Surprise Major and White Hall Surprise Major have both been named, as have Christchurch Surprise Royal and Christ Church Surprise Royal. The Technical & Taxonomy Workgroup will review similar method names when they occur, and may request that a band uses a different name to avoid possible confusion.

What will happen to methods and variations that have already been named with name clashes, if they exist?

The process for this is described in Appendix F.1 Transitional Arrangements, which also links to a schedule of the affected methods.

F.

Whole-Pull Ringing

It would be useful to allow whole pull performances (i.e. every row repeated) -- but only when half-muffled.

A very important aspect of the new framework is that we are not seeking to allow or disallow certain types of ringing. Instead we're aiming to provide standard terminology that enables ringers to describe what they rang, so that other ringers can read about ringing performances and be clear on what was rung.

Whole pull ringing doesn't follow the norms of method ringing. Under Section 6.C n) the report of a whole pull performance should therefore include a disclosure that the composition was rung in whole pulls. As noted above, whole pull ringing can work well when the bells are half-muffled.

G.

Implementation

Link to methods library is missing; Section 5.A.1 (expanded)

Thanks -- this has now been added.

We should be prepared to get something agreed and continue to enhance & improve explanations over time rather than seek perfection before we publish. What is there is already much better than what we have.

The framework team agrees. The first version of the framework won't be perfect, and it's doubtful there could ever be a perfect framework. We envisage a process of continuous improvement to the framework over time as issues and inconsistencies are discovered, and as method ringing continues to evolve.

This may be the first location where I found a reasonable description of leadhead codes! An even better explanation of what these are and why they are important is almost certainly outside the scope of this framework, however, a lack of good understanding of what these are and why they are important is one of many barriers for new composers/conductors, especially those who do not have access to an experienced conductor in a mentoring kind of way.

We think you're right that this is probably beyond the scope of the framework, at least for the first version. However we've now added 'They are a useful shorthand for communicating the Lead order of a Method' to the first paragraph of Appendix C, to give a high-level indication of their purpose.

My own belief is that you should stop describing this work as 'technical' in the sense of difficult for ordinary people to understand. It is 'technical' in that it relates to a detailed understanding of what a method is. And for that, of course, it takes time to absorb in detail. However, if any of the framework requires additional (undocumented within the framework) knowledge in order to understand what the framework means, then this is a failure. I am not a composer, method designer, and not a very experienced conductor, but I am perfectly capable of understanding what these mean and their significance to the Exercise. And perhaps one day I might become one of these things, so making it accessible (which on the whole you have succeeded at) would help that to happen. You should also stop portraying this work as 'of interest to only a few ringers'. This is only partly true. Most ringers assume they are not interested because they are continually told it is not interesting. But every ringer understands that a method name consists of a title, a classification and a stage. This is part of the framework and is built into how we teach people about ringing. OK, the very finest detail is more esoteric, but then so are certain aspects of ringing history, or bellframe construction, or safeguarding issues, none of which we portray as too difficult for the ordinary ringer to understand.

We agree that the framework shouldn't require any additional (undocumented within the framework) knowledge in order to understand what the framework means, and this has been one of our key goals. We hope we've achieved this, but welcome any suggestions on an ongoing basis on how the framework might be made clearer.

It hasn't been our intention to portray the framework as 'too difficult for the ordinary ringer to understand'. The framework is 'technical' in the sense that it includes theory and mechanics of method ringing, so the fine detail may be of more interest to specialists than to generalists, but the fundamental content underpins method ringing and should be accessible to any interested ringer.

We have been cautious not to give the impression that we think every ringer ought to be spending lots of time studying the framework. Ringing has lots of problems to solve, including existential ones relating to the declining number of ringers and ageing demographics. We therefore wanted to get the balance right in saying there is value in having a well-thought-out framework for describing method ringing, but there are also many other challenges facing the Exercise that need ringers' time and energy.

Appendix E.D.3 (formerly 2.B.3): Also add excludes concords (= chords) (see Campanalogia) where two bells ring at the same time. Also we are not considering irregular spaced ringing. Handstroke gap or cartwheel distinction also not part of ringing framework. Also combination - consider ringing minor cartwheel, but with open handstroke when tenor is behind previously!

Appendix E.D.3 already notes that chords are outside the boundaries of what is considered method ringing. It doesn't seem necessary to further categorise chords into, say, concords and discords.

Irregular spacing and handstroke gaps are elements of striking. We decided for this first version of the framework only to make a general exhortation on good striking (see the definition of Performance - 3.K.1). We've also included a general ringing quality criterion to the role of umpire(s) in record lengths -- see 7.B.5. We've added handstroke gaps / cartwheeling, bell spacing and similar topics to the list of items for consideration in a subsequent version of the framework.

It's common when reporting spliced performances to abbreviate Surprise to S, Delight to D, etc. But the framework doesn't cover this. Could it be added?

Agreed and done. See 6.A.2.

H.

Method Extension

I could follow most of [Section 13 -- Method Extension Processes] (the diagrams are helpful), but I didn't understand just what a 'mode' was and what it was supposed to mean. It also wasn't clear that the example was Mode=2 from the supplied diagrams. What is the significance of Mode=2, and how is it different from Mode=1 or Mode=6? I understood that Mode has a number between 1 and the Stage (so 6 in this example), but I don't understand what the significance of the selection is. This seems important for the remainder of the criteria and how each section is defined.

Thanks -- helpful feedback. We've now separately defined Mode in the framework (see Appendix D.A.4), and have shown in the further explanation of this section how different modes affect an example string of place notation.

Re: Section 8.A: This may be something which could not, or is unlikely to, happen. Is it possible to name a method on 12 and it therefore becomes the Parent which then potentially precludes the use of the same name for lower numbers, given the current definition?

Good question. Giving a new lower stage method the same name as an existing higher stage method isn't precluded provided the methods are related. E.g. assume XYZ Maximus has been rung and named. If a Major method is rung, and an extension process can be applied to the Major method to obtain XYZ Maximus, then the Major and Maximus methods are related. The Major method can therefore be named XYZ Major if all other extension requirements are met. The term 'parent' doesn't imply that the parent method was rung and named before any extensions were rung / named. Parent is just the lower or lowest stage method in a set of related methods.

I.

Typos / Grammar / Layout / Formatting

What is the status of sections 10-14? Reference is made to the extensions processes, but not the others.

The previous sections 10-14 are now appendices in the latest version of the framework. As described in Section 1.C, the appendices are supporting material, and are not part of the framework itself.

Likelihood is misspelled in Section 11, paragraph 1.

Thanks -- fixed.

I was unsure why section 4.A.5 requires 'in question' at the end.

We felt that just 'a block' rather than 'a block in question' was insufficiently specific -- the former could be interpreted as 'any block'. The same applies to Sections 4.A.6, 4.A.14, 4.A.15 and 4.A.16.

Section 7.B.5 -- 'be' is missing between 'must' and 'heard'.

Thanks -- fixed.

One small inconsistency: 7.C.4 refers to an umpires’ report (thereby precluding a single umpire). 9.D.5 refers to the umpire(s)’ report. 'Report of the umpire(s)' would definitively overcome this.

We've changed 7.C.4 to refer to umpire(s)’ report, consistent with 9.D.5. While we agree 'report of the umpire(s)' better handles both singular and plural instances, we felt that "umpires' report" is part of the record length vernacular.

3.J.5 What are x and y? (integers, natural numbers, integers >= 0)

This is just numbering / labelling. Agree that (x) and (y) could give the impression of representing quantities, so these have now been changed to (i) and (ii) to hopefully make things clearer.

J.

Record Lengths

Re: Section 7.B, Record Lengths: This section requires the organiser to notify the RW and the Central Council of forthcoming attempt. Could this be changed to just 'The RW and CCCBR must be notified', without adding a requirement of who must notify? This simplification would avoid possible non-compliance if the conductor and not the organiser gave the required notices.

Agreed -- thanks. This change has been made.

There is some uncertainty in record length ringing as to what the umpires should do. Can the framework clarify this?

Agreed. We've now expanded 7.B.5 to include, in general terms, the type of checking the umpire(s) should do. Also, 6.C.2.g states the norm that 'No person not ringing provided any assistance in the execution of the ringing during the Performance, e.g. making calls, detecting or correcting errors.' This replaces the 'No assistance of any kind' language of the Decisions. This means that if an umpire (or any other person present), say, picks up a ringer's water bottle that has fallen out of the ringer's reach, this is acceptable as it isn't assistance with the execution of the ringing. The same would apply to turning on a light, turning off a heater, etc.

K.

Peals of Triples < 5040 Changes

There is an obvious and elegant reason why a peal of Triples should be 5040 changes. I think it is illogical and unnecessary to change this.

This may be the single most contentious issue that has emerged during the framework project, so here's a longer answer covering this point.

Clearly there's a strong link between the word 'peal' and the ringing of an extent of Triples, and in fact in the early days of ringing, peal was also used to describe the ringing of an extent of Minor.

It might have been more elegant if peals at all stages had originally been defined as 5040 or more changes. But peals of less than 5040 started to be rung for Major and above as early as 1755, and so the 5000 minimum for higher stages is long established, and dates to well before the Central Council was formed.

While many people would like to see 5040 retained as the minimum length for a peal of Triples, there are many others who support the simpler and more consistent approach of peals having a minimum length of 5000 changes at all stages. The limited data we have suggests a split of around 60/40, with the majority favoring standardisation on 5000 at all stages.

It's important to note that the framework gives ranges for the different performance lengths -- e.g. a QP is 1250 - 2499, and a half peal is 2500 - 4999. In this context, a peal having a range of 5000 - 9999 and being part of a bigger sequence of performance lengths supports standardisation on a 5000 minimum.

It’s perhaps also worth noting that the length of the extent isn't part of ringing’s performance terminology anywhere else. For example, a QP of Minor is reasonably close to two extents, but there wasn’t a move to make 1440 the minimum number of changes for a Minor QP. This isn’t a directly comparable situation given we recognise that the concept of a peal originated from the goal of ringing an extent. But it highlights that we can view standard performance ranges (<1250, 1250-2499, 2500-4999, 5000-9999, and >=10000) as distinct from extent lengths (24, 120, 720, 5040) which are single numbers.

Setting the minimum length at 5000 for all stages allows those who want to continue ringing no less than 5040 to do so. But setting the definition at 5040 takes away the option of ringing between 5000 and 5039 from those who want it. Using 5000 is therefore the permissive option. It’s clearly also the simpler option, as a peal can have the same definition across all stages.

There could be a separate carve-out for Triples – i.e. for all stages except Triples, a peal requires a minimum of 5000 changes, but for Triples the minimum is 5040. But this then raises several other questions: should a QP of Triples (the length that enables a new method to be named) be 1260 instead of 1250? Is a half peal of Triples 2520 and a long length of Triples 10080?

There could also be valid reasons for wanting to ring 5000-5039 Triples. There might be a wish to ring a peal in this length range for an anniversary of the last two numbers (e.g. a 5026 for a 26th birthday) and only a Triples band is available. There could be an interesting compositional reason for doing so -- e.g. there's a true, non-round 5039 of Grandsire Triples that only uses bobs. For over two centuries, composers have been searching for a bobs-only extent of Erin Triples. So far, the longest true bobs-only round block found is 4990 changes. If, say, a 5004 is found (before any longer length), a number of ringers would be interested in ringing it.

Even with a move to a standard minimum peal length of 5000, we can be sure that the vast majority of Triples peals will continue to be 5040 changes in length. There is, of course, something very elegant and appealing about ringing every possible row exactly once.

In 2016, the Decisions were relaxed to allow peals of Triples (and lower stages) to include partial extents. Previously a peal of Triples could only be whole multiples of extents (5040, 10080, 15120, etc). Under the current Decisions, they can be any length that is 5040 or higher. Since that update, 353 peals of Triples have been posted on BellBoard (at the time of writing). Only one of them took advantage of the Decision change -- a 5320 of Grandsire Triples -- the rest were all 5040s. The 5320 was an interesting performance because the composition was bobs only -- not something that can be done in a 5040 of Grandsire Triples. We have similar expectations that ringers will only choose to ring between 5000 and 5039 of Triples when there is a specific reason for doing so.

We’ve therefore retained 5000 as the minimum length for peals across all stages. This is the permissive approach, and keeping ringing terminology as simple and consistent as possible makes things easier for new ringers joining the Exercise. No one has to ring a 5000 – 5039 of Triples if they don’t want to, but equally we don't think anyone should try to prevent those who do want to ring a 5000 – 5039 of Triples from claiming a peal, given this number meets the requirement for a peal at other stages. In any community such as ours there will be a wide range of opinions, and ultimately it's beneficial if we can find ways to coexist as peacefully as possible. No one thinks a 4999 should be a peal (ok, you could probably find someone who thinks this), but there are many ringers who would like to see 5000 as the minimum peal length across all stages. The 5040 supporters can still choose never to ring peals of Triples that are less than 5040 changes. Live and let live.

L.

Technical Comments

Check mathematics for formal permutation definitions.
Also cycle notation
(12)(34)(56)
3.C.1. unfortunately mathematicians seem to regard transposition differently:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Transposition.html
'For example, the swapping of 2 and 5 to take the list 123456 to 153426 is a transposition'

We've now added the following technical comment to 3.C.1: 'Note that in mathematics, transposition refers to the exchange of two elements. However in ringing, as well as in more general usage, transposition can involve the exchange of more than two elements. For example, ringers talk about transposing coursing orders, which often involves rotating 3 bells.'

3.E.1. 'A sequence of Changes all of the same Stage, or a process to generate such a sequence.'
The 'process' part is a little tricky and leaves scope for well defined, but useless definitions.
E.g. process
Ring [1.3.1.3.1.{7|5}.3.1.3.1.3.{7|5}]^840
where at each choice of 7 or 5, 7 is chosen unless it is impossible to generate a round block of the extent with any choice of following 7 or 5s.
This exists, but we don't know what it is.
It is a 'static method'.

[3.1.3.1.3.{7|5}]^840
where at each choice of 7 or 5, 7 is chosen unless it is impossible to generate a round block of the extent with any choice of following 7 or 5s.
This might, or might not exist.

What is this?
[3.1.3.1.3.{7|5}]^840
where at each choice of 7 or 5, 7 is chosen unless it is impossible to generate a longer or same length round block than if 5 is chosen, with any choice of following 7 or 5s.
This exists, but we don't know how long it is, but it is fixed and finite.
It is a static method.

Method PI Royal
Generate the digits of PI with a decimal expansion
1->10
2->12
3->30
4->14
5->50
6->16
7->70
8->18
9->90
0->X
ignore the first z digits until the remaining 3628800 changes generates the extent.

Agreed that processes for generating sequences of changes could be well-defined but practically useless, as demonstrated by your examples. We've now added the following technical comment to 3.E.3 (Dynamic Method), that uses your bobs-only Erin example:

"Technical comment: A Dynamic Method should be capable of producing a readily-determinable sequence of Changes. A process such as 'Ring the Changes [3.1.3.1.3.{7|5}]^840 where at each choice of 7 or 5, 7 is chosen unless it is impossible to generate a Round Block of the Extent with any choice of following 7 or 5s' is not a valid Dynamic Method, even though this is a well-defined process.

"Dynamic Methods are in their infancy, and more precise definitions in this area may be developed for future versions of the framework if there is sufficient interest by the ringing community."

3.G.1 "In addition to using a Method's whole sequence of Changes one or more times in a Composition, any subset of a Method's sequence of Changes may also be used."
'Any subset'? including the empty set?
Do you mean contiguous chunk, or any random changes extracted from the method?
What about double bob minimus X14X34X14X12.
We can take any subset of those changes multiple times and have any other adjacent-change method.

This is the known problem of overlap -- there isn't a way to define method ringing such that there is only one valid way to describe any given sequence of changes. E.g. Stedman can also be described as spliced Erin and Bastow Little Bob.

Any attempt to enforce a single way of defining a given sequence of changes results in valid ringing constructs also being ruled out. We therefore leave it to ringers to use their good judgement in deciding the best way to describe any given sequence of changes.

2.B.6 Truth at N is every possible row not more than N times. Complete at N is every possible row at least N times. then with cover or fixed bells, truth is still maintained Completeness is all possibly distinct rows while maintaining fixed bells

Agreed. Put another way, and replacing N with M in your second sentence, we can say that any touch can be given a pair of numbers, N and M, relating to its truth.
For no rows repeated, N = 1 (e.g. a normal peal of Triples of higher);
For complete, N = M (e.g. two extents of Grandsire Doubles, where N and M = 2);
For truth as defined in the framework, N - M <= 1.

We found that we didn't need to define Complete for use elsewhere in the framework, though it is a commonly-used term when discussing truth. We therefore didn't include Complete in the interests of simplicity.

M.

Second Consultation

I have nothing to add to the informed and refined Framework for Method Ringing as drafted.

Thank you for this feedback.

Good on the whole and easy to understand (unless you're on a mobile device!)

Yes, we recognize the framework isn’t easy to read on a mobile device. This is on the list of items to look at for future versions of the framework.

A couple of comments:
4.A.1 mentions dynamic methods but no further explanation is given. I assume this would cater for the likes of Dixon's Bob Minor? How is this to be classified?

Yes, Dixon’s is a dynamic method – the only one so far that is reasonably well known. Dynamic methods (with Dixon’s as an example) are defined in 3.E.3. There is no proposed subclassification of dynamic methods at this stage, given there are so few of them. We have now added a note to this effect in 4.A.1.

4.E would be much easier to understand with an example.

Good suggestion – examples have now been added.

Link missing from 5.D.1 + 5.D.2.

Thanks, now updated. The calls and variations libraries are not yet provided by the CC (see Appendix F.4). Once they are, links will be added. We’ve now cross referenced Appendix F.4 from 5.D.2.

5.D.3 how do we classify April Day Triples, i.e. Plain Bob with Grandsire calls? Is it still Plain Bob?

A variation has the same classification as the method on which it’s based – see 5.D.4 a). So April Day has a Bob classification. But note that variations are currently only recorded in the library at the Doubles stage (see 5.D.3). The possibility of expanding the variations library to record variations at other stages is on the list of items for consideration in later versions of the framework.

5.E.1 b) should also use the word contain, instead of is, when talking about a round block, eg if a 1440 of Minor is rung during a multi method peal.

In 5.E.1 b), round block is being used at the performance level – i.e. the complete performance is required to be a round block when naming a new method. The framework recognises non-round block performances (since the goal is to be descriptive / permissive) such as ringing that starts in Rounds and ends in Queens. But new methods have traditionally been named in round block performances, and the framework maintains this tradition. Note that a round block performance can comprise many smaller round blocks – e.g. a peal of 7 round block extents of Minor.

With reference to: "6.B.4 The report of a Performance that used simulated sound must state that it did." This gave rise to a number of questions in my mind, and the more I thought about it the more involved and complicated it got. So I've tried to précis my thoughts

1) The Exercise of ringing is about controlling the bell(s). The art of producing a sound is that of the bell-founder -- nothing to do with ringing. So why stipulate the form of sound production? Does it matter if the bells are made of steel, or they are major third bells? If it's to do with people listening to the performance, would it be OK if the sound was broadcast from PA speakers on the tower?

The purpose of 6.B.4 is to provide information in performance reports that some members of the ringing community will want to know about. Some ringers will only want to read about performances that were rung with real bell sounds – clapper on bell metal. Others will be interested in reading about performances rung with real bell sounds or simulated sound. 6.B.4 lets readers find what they’re interested in reading about.

This clause is not related to listening to the performance. The requirement for tower bells to be audible outside the building has already been removed from the Decisions (removed in 2017).

2) Is the problem to do with the possibility that the performance might be on DUMB BELLS? I recognise that the mechanism may be different, but if you don't differentiate between, say, "mini-rings" and tower bells, why should this be an issue? One still has to control the bell(s).

We don’t see a need for additional disclosure on dumb bells (or dumb handbells). By definition, these will have simulated sound, which will be disclosed under 6.B.4. The distinction between a performance rung on dumb bells with simulated sound, and a performance rung on tower bells whose clappers were tied and using simulated sound, doesn’t seem crucial enough to warrant a specific disclosure. And in practice the distinction will often be clear from other parts of the performance report – e.g. where the performance was rung or the weight of the tenor.

3) Perhaps this statement was intended to refer to simulated RINGERS? It seems from what I've read elsewhere in your document that, provided an umpire was present, a single bell, rung by a single person, would be classified as a performance even if all the other bells were rung by simulated ringers and the performance otherwise met all other criteria. Is that correct?

The framework assumes all bells were rung by human ringers. 6.B.1 f) calls for their names to be included in the performance report, 6.C.2 e) refers to bells being rung by people, and 6.C.2 h) and i) refer to the human way of ringing bells.

The single person plus umpire reference relates to (say) one person ringing a performance of Minimus on handbells with four-in-hand. It doesn’t refer to computers ringing some of the bells.

The framework therefore doesn’t cover ringing by pressing a key on a keyboard, and/or having a computer ring some of the bells. However, these sorts of performances are occasionally posted on BellBoard. In these cases 6.C.2 o) applies – the performance wasn’t consistent with the framework, and therefore under 6.C.1, the performance report should state what took place.

Overall, I rather think that this clause goes against the spirit of your remit. In case it's relevant, I mention the following: I sometimes ring QPs on a simulator at a local ringing centre. When we first did this, the performance notices stated that they were "Rung on Abel". More recently, they give the name of the tower as the ringing centre, rather than the church. Performances on the open bells are given as rung at the church. Even so, as the bells are muffled and the sound control is in place when we ring on the simulator, it is still possible to listen to the bells if you stand at the base of the tower -- but traffic noise and natural attenuation is sufficient to make the bells virtually inaudible at the boundary of the graveyard. If the bells had their clappers tied this would be different -- but it would *feel* different to ring, too. What is important here? This needs some thought!

We hope the comments above cover your points. In summary, the framework covers human ringers ringing full circle (tower bells) or alternating up-strokes and down-strokes (handbells), and if the sound was simulated, this should be disclosed. Use of simulated ringers and/or ringing by pressing a key is outside the framework and this should be disclosed in the performance report.

There are over 300 Slow Course methods in the CC Library, including nearly 20% of the 187 methods in the 1980 Doubles Collection. The earliest of these, Itchingfield, dates back to around 1900 and others were first rung in the 1950s. Why should it be necessary to rename these methods?

We agree it’s not ideal renaming (or retitling) any method. However, as ringing has evolved over the decades, the classification system has become overcomplicated, and given our ‘simple’ mandate, we believe some limited rationalization is helpful. We’ve deliberately limited the number of methods that are retitled as a result of our classification changes to keep this manageable.

The Slow Course classification is the most anachronistic and inconsistent classification in the Decisions. It’s the only classification that depends on two different classes of hunt path being present, and it requires a specific bell (the 2nd) to have a certain hunt path. Retiring Slow Course results in a small but useful reduction in the complexity of the classification system.

There is also prior precedent for retiring classes that are felt to be no longer needed. E.g. the Imperial, College and Court classifications were retired in 1982.

It’s planned for the methods library to store names / titles by which methods have previously been known, so once this is implemented, it will still be possible to search for Slow Course methods by their previous names / titles.

We’re giving bands that named Slow Course methods the option to include either ‘Slow’ or ‘Slow Course’ in the method name if they wish.

Overall, it’s a close call, but on balance we think the benefits of making some simplifications to the classification system outweigh the inconvenience of a small percentage of methods being renamed or retitled.

The framework attempts to define truth in a way that it can be applied to any performance without reference to the stage of the methods being rung. Whilst a laudable aim, this can lead to inconsistencies.

Applying the criteria to the "Effective Stage" of a composition and not the "Composition Stage" means that e.g. a 240 of Doubles with the tenor behind could be claimed as a true touch of Minor where the tenor remains in 6th’s place.

Our view is that truth should be assessed on a block of rows, regardless of what composition was used to generate these rows. It’s well-known that different compositions can generate the same rows (e.g. the same touch of Stedman can be produced by splicing Erin and Bastow Little Bob). In your example, even if the composition used Minor method(s), the 240 rows the composition generates have an effective stage of Doubles, so truth should be assessed at this stage.

"Accepted Truth" is intended to provide an algorithm for the equivalent of the existing decision on peals of Doubles and Minor, etc, that does not require the individual blocks to be specified. However, there are several problems with the resultant definition:

- It includes possibilities not covered by the existing decision (e.g. an extent of Minor plus partial extents of both Doubles and Minor);

Accepted truth generated a lot of debate among the framework team. Historically, peals of, say, 6 extents of Minor plus 6 extents of Doubles with a cover have been accepted as true, even though if these 5040 rows were all considered at the Minor stage, the performance wouldn’t be true. We’ve therefore adopted the term ‘accepted truth’ to differentiate the two.

With this as the starting point, the question is then, do the two stages have to comprise complete extents, or can there also be partial extents? We’re trying to be descriptive and permissive, so the answer is that partial extents should be recognized if bands choose to ring them.

The next question is should there be able to be a partial extent at both stages, or only at one stage. The Decisions required complete extents up until 2016, but then recognized a partial extent being rung at one of the two stages (but not both) from this point onwards.

In the interests of permissiveness, we started by recognizing partial extents at both stages. So, for example, a QP of 900 Minor and 450 Doubles could have accepted truth. The problem with this approach is that it gives some anomalous results. For example, a 720 of Minor and 2 plain courses of Stedman Doubles would appear to be false. But one of the plain courses of Stedman Doubles could be considered to be a partial extent of Minor, and therefore this performance could be viewed as 780 Minor and 60 of Doubles, and have accepted truth. This seemed wrong, so we’ve now updated the definition of accepted truth to only recognize a partial extent at one of the two stages.

- It excludes possibilities covered by the existing decision (e.g. extents of Doubles plus a partial extent of Minor);

This is intentional. We believe the rationale for accepted truth is that once you’ve rung all the possible rows on a given number of bells, there is justification in relaxing the definition of truth to enable more variety. From the meeting minutes, this seemed to be the intent of the 1898 Central Council debate on peals of Doubles and Minor. It also explains why the current Decisions don’t recognize, for example, an extent of Triples and a partial extent of Major.

- It excludes touches that are True according to the more general definition (e.g. a 1440 of Minor ending with 56.56);

Agreed, and this has now been updated. The definition of Accepted Truth now includes anything that is True.

- It does not address additional possibilities covered by the more permissive aspects of the framework, e.g. multiple cover bells or a cover bell leading.

This is also intentional. Performances of Doubles and Minor, etc have had a specific structure for many decades, and we don’t see a case, at least in version 1 of the framework, for changing this.

If we fully embrace the Descriptive, Permissive mandate, then I believe that the Accepted Truth definition is unnecessary. Instead, we only require that what is rung is accurately reported. The Performance Norms should be either of:

a) The performance consists of a single True composition, and the report should make clear both the length and (if there are any cover bells) which bells take part in the composition;

b) The performance consists of a series of separate True compositions, each reported as in a). If these are followed, it should be clear whether or not a peal complies with the existing decisions regarding truth, and so unnecessary to state that it does not.

We think it should be possible to determine truth just by inspecting the rows that were rung. No knowledge of the underlying compositions should be needed to determine truth. E.g. if two false compositions are rung back to back, but together they produce a true set of rows, the performance should be true.

If compositions are performed side by side (e.g. on 12 bells, a Minor composition is rung on the front 6 and another Minor composition is rung on the back 6), truth should be assessed at the Maximus stage. The truth of the individual compositions isn’t relevant in this scenario.

3.E.1 of the framework defines a Method as "A sequence of Changes all of the same Stage, or a process to generate such a sequence". This dichotomy has bothered me from when it was first proposed. The notes make it clear that a “sequence” refers to a single lead, and could be a building block for a composition, or an entry in a methods library - but this does not capture the essence of a method, that it repeats indefinitely, and there is always a next change. A “process” is better, and could be applied to either a Static Method or a Dynamic Method. However, there is no indication of any restriction on what the process can be, or how it might be recorded: Are two processes that generate the same sequence the same Method? Is the process "Plain Hunt except 2nd’s is made when the treble leads" the same as Plain Bob? Does a process have to be deterministic? Is "if it is Sunday, ring Grandsire, otherwise ring Stedman" a method?

We agree a method is hard to define rigorously, and if we were to use a fully rigorous definition, it would probably be very technical and not much use to “ordinary ringers”. We’ve therefore applied a common-sense definition for version 1 of the framework. The benefit of defining a method in terms of a single plain lead is that this corresponds to what is recorded in the methods library.

Our definition also allows for methods such as Dixon’s, where the sequence of changes isn’t fixed, but since such dynamic methods are only rung very rarely at present, we haven’t attempted to develop fully precise definitions in this area. We also haven’t tried to determine what restrictions (if any) should be applied to the processes underlying dynamic methods, nor specify how dynamic methods should be recorded in the methods library. These areas can all be considered in future versions of the framework if there’s sufficient interest by the ringing community.

Your statement “there is always a next change” is potentially problematic. While a static method’s changes can be thought of as repeating indefinitely, a dynamic method could be created where, under a given condition, the sequence of changes ends.

"5.C.8: A Method should only be given the same Name as another Method in the Methods Library that has a different Stage if the requirements for Method Extension are met.”

I used to think that Class Descriptors each represented a 'name space' such that names could be re-used at will provided the Class Descriptor was different. From the wording here (including the use of 'should') it seems to be more complicated. But if for example I wish to name a new Triples principle 'Danbury', I'd like to believe that would be OK, without having to read all the material about Method Extension just because there are already similarly named Delight and Treble Place methods at a different stage.

That’s correct – the Class Descriptor represents a namespace and method names can generally be reused within each namespace, as is the case under the Decisions. But see the example in 8.B.3 for an exception. Applying this exception to your example, you’re generally free to name your Triples principle Danbury even though there may already be Danbury Delight and Danbury Treble Place methods. However, if a Doubles principle has already been named Danbury, you can only name your Triples principle Danbury if it’s related to Danbury Doubles. Similarly, if Danbury Caters and Danbury Cinques have already been named, you can only name your Triples principle Danbury if it’s on the same extension path as the Caters and Cinques methods.

There’s no particular significance to the use of ‘should’. These are requirements of the framework but we wanted to avoid authoritarian language such as ‘must’ or ‘shall’.

8.A.1 Further explanation: The Central Council's collection of recognised Extension Processes can be found in Appendix B.” It's in Appendix D. "

Thank you – now fixed.

I'd like to make 2 points on the current draft of the framework:

3.H.2 states "A Composition is described as Variable Cover if one or more Cover Bells are affected by any of the Composition's Calls." However, in dual-stage peals, quarter peals, etc. there may be only one bell which covers for the part(s) of the composition with a cover bell, but this bell is affected by calls (even if the call is simply the change of method). I would not describe this composition as 'variable cover' but under this current draft it could be described as such. (Perhaps that is intended, and dual-stage performances will be considered as variable cover, but I do not feel that they are currently viewed as such.)

Thank you – we agree the example you describe shouldn’t be variable cover. We’ve now added the following to the further explanation of 3.H.2: “Note that a Composition is not considered Variable Cover if a Cover Bell is only affected by a change to a higher Stage Method such that the (former) Cover Bell is now one of the bells on which the Method's Changes operate.”

6.B.1 and 7.B.2 both make reference to the date on which a performance takes place. There have been a handful of - often notable - performances in history which have taken place on more than one day e.g. 40320 Plain Bob Major on 27th-28th July 1963. I therefore suggest that "date" is replaced with "date(s)" in 6.B.1 and "date" is replaced with "start date" in 7.B.2

On 7.B.2 (notice of record lengths), we agree the notification should say start date (as opposed to just date) – this has now been updated.

On 6.B.1 (content of performance reports), we did consider multiple dates, but since a goal is for performance reports to be easily stored in databases, we felt a single date field was preferable, given how infrequently performances span midnight. We’ve already stated in the further explanation for 6.B.1 that the date to use in the report is the date on which the performance ended. We’ve now added a sentence to the 6.B.1 further explanation suggesting that bands may wish to include the performance start date in the footnote if it’s different from the end date (and in this case, perhaps also the start or end time).

7. Record Lengths:

Q1: These currently go through the Peals team in the History & Archive Workgroup. Is it anticipated that the e-mailing of notices and reports will be continued by that team as an activity that is shared with the Technical workgroup?

Yes. The Technical & Taxonomy Workgroup is happy to assist with any activities related to Record Lengths, but the activity and associated processes are currently the responsibility of the History & Archive Workgroup. The Framework has now been updated in this regard as this section was drafted when Peal Records Committee work was expected to fall in the Technical & Taxonomy remit. The Further Explanation sections in 7.B and 7.C now say “… can be emailed to the Central Council's History & Archive Workgroup at records@cccbr.org.uk.”

Q2: There is a final step in the current process where, the reports being assessed as being satisfactory, the RW Editor is informed that it is OK to publish the performance. Is it intended that this should continue?

Yes, this step is covered in Section 9.D.4. A further explanation has now been added stating that the CC’s History & Archive workgroup performs this step.

9. Related Roles - E. Analysis and Reporting:

Q1: Is it expected that the Peals team in the History & Archive Workgroup will continue to use their experience and skills to fulfil this requirement?

Yes, this is our understanding. The Technical & Taxonomy Workgroup is happy to assist as requested. For example, it can help with the list of methods first rung during the year, noting that methods may be first rung in extents and quarter peals as well as peals, so all these should be included.

Q2: How will the publishing of the report be managed?

Similarly, we understand that this is the responsibility of the History & Archive Workgroup. The Technical & Taxonomy Workgroup would be happy to help compile the report and/or review it for consistency and accuracy.

Q3: What is the purpose and audience of the reporting? If it is intended to inform Council debate and decisions, a calendar year report would be of reduced relevance due to the lateness of the CCCBR meeting. If it is for the wider edification of the ringing community then perhaps some thought needs to go into the content, scope and functionality that would be expected in a modern digital world.

We believe that such reporting should be for the benefit of the Ringing Exercise as a whole as well as to inform Central Council initiatives, and would agree that it is beneficial to provide selected analysis online not just for the current year, but also for historic years.

We deliberately have not stated in detail the form or content of such reporting to allow flexibility and continuous improvement. The Technical & Taxonomy Workgroup would be happy to work with the History & Archive Workgroup and The Ringing World on improving and automating procedures for compiling, maintaining and presenting the analysis, from which a report to the Council can also be created with sufficient currency for the AGM.

Appendix F. Transitional Arrangements - 2. Retroactive recognition of Peals:

Q1: Is it expected that the Peals team in the History & Archive Workgroup will continue to use their experience and skills to fulfil this requirement?

Yes. The Framework has now been updated in this regard as this section was drafted when Peal Records Committee work was expected to fall in the Technical & Taxonomy remit. The words 'T&T Workgroup' have been amended to 'History & Archive Workgroup' and the email address to 'records@cccbr.org.uk'.

Adding such peals retroactively should be similar to the approach taken for early peals identified from newspapers that are missing from the records. In this case, it may save effort to undertake a review of annual Central Council Reports for peals excluded from each analysis, and update the historic records accordingly - determining an appropriate course of action for any methods that have not been subsequently added to the CCCBR Methods Library.

I have number of fundamental objections to the framework as it is now presented and do not feel any of the points I have made previously have been adequately addressed.

The framework does not meet the criteria specified by the Council, specifically it is not simple and does not use the simple straightforward language of real ringing; if the Council had asked for framework for the theory behind bellringing it would be more acceptable but it does not describe the real world of practical ringing.

The framework isn’t attempting only to describe practical, everyday ringing. There are other publications that do this. It’s attempting to be a framework that can describe all forms of method ringing. But this includes describing many forms of ‘real ringing’ that aren’t covered by the Decisions, such as quarter peals, and ringing with more than one cover bell.

Also, too many terms are redefined to completely change their historic meanings, this is particularly true of the meaning of the term `method' which is now defined to be something quite indeterminate, whereas historically it has always been a round block divisible into equal parts called leads. While the previous decisions of the Council had a number of serious flaws I do believe that, in many ways, they were nearer to what is required than the current theoretical approach which, in my opinion, is also fundamentally flawed.

The framework recognises a method that has one lead in its plain course, whereas the Decisions require a method to have 2 or more leads. The Decisions treat a one-lead method as a non-method block. The concept of non-method blocks has been widely criticized, and was a large impetus behind the CC vote in 2014 to undertake a fundamental review of the Decisions.

The topic of methods with one-lead plain courses was debated extensively by the Ringing Theory email group in 2014. A poll was taken to gauge views. 35 people responded to the poll and 80% supported methods being able to have a one-lead plain course.

Take the minor method 34.16x34x16.34.12. It has 5 leads in its plain course. If the last change is altered to give 34.16x34x16.34.16, the method now has 1 lead in its plain course. We don’t see there is any justification or logic in saying that altering one place notation results in us no longer being engaged in method ringing.

In light of the above, and since there are only 7 non-method blocks in the methods library today (note the illogicality of including non-methods in a methods library), in the interests of simplicity we have eliminated non-method blocks and treated one-lead methods as methods.

There is a valid argument that methods with one-lead plain courses should be separately classified. We debated this and it was a close call, but we decided in the end that it was unnecessary to add a new classification for these methods. The classification system is already overly-complicated and we should be trying to simplify it rather than adding new classes. And if you rang, say, Bristol Surprise Major with a 12 lead end, this would still seem like ringing a surprise method.

I think the committee has been disingenuous in not making clear the wide-ranging changes to terminology they are proposing in their comments in The Ringing World and so the rank and file ringer has been unaware of the nature of what is being proposed.

We think this is unfair. We’ve gone out of our way to be fully transparent at all stages of this project. The live draft of the framework has been publicly available on the Internet since Oct 2017, with the URL published in all 4 of our RW articles. Our second RW article (Mar 2nd 2018) outlined all the main changes in the new framework, including that methods with one-lead plain courses would be recognised.

We’ve held two ringing-community-wide consultations. The second of these was publicized very widely, including in the RW, on ringers’ email lists, on Facebook and Twitter, on the CC website, and by communication to all CC members and to all CC-affiliated societies. It’s hard to know what else we could have done to be more open about the nature of what we’re proposing. No one else has accused us of disingenuity.

As I have said previously I think what is needed is a precise description of change-ringing and that the definition of a method should not be expanded in the way it is to makes it all-encompassing but again almost meaningless as it becomes virtually the same as a lead or a block and so totally opaque to the normal ringer.

There is no practical way of limiting the definition of a method so that only nonsensical cases are excluded – this always results in sensible cases also being ruled out. Arbitrary limits on a method will annoy ringers who believe the limits have been set in the wrong place, as we’ve seen over the past 100 years. It’s better to remove the limits and let ringers decide what they wish to name as methods.

I believe we are fundamentally change ringers and not method ringers and this is borne out by the fact that many Associations have `Change Ringers' in their title and none as far as I know have `Method Ringers'.

We view change ringing as encompassing both method ringing and call change ringing, and since most associations support both, it makes sense for them to describe themselves as change ringing organizations. This subject was debated on the Ringing Theory list in 2015 and a poll was held. 77% supported the view that the difference between method ringing and change ringing is that the latter also includes call change ringing.

As examples of things that aren't methods but are perfectly acceptable pieces of ringing, Dixon's Bob Minor fell foul of the previous regulations because of the insistence that peals had to consist of methods and the methods had to conform to the decisions; the present framework invents a new category of method rather than describing what it is: a rule-based way of generating changes.

All methods are rules (or processes) for generating rows. The rules may be simple (a fixed string of changes) or complex (the changes vary depending on other criteria), but the level of complexity shouldn’t be used to prevent certain methods from being methods. We believe most people ringing Dixon’s would consider themselves to be ringing ‘a funny kind of method’ as opposed to not ringing a method.

It is also easy to generate a true block of 24 changes of minimus which has no structure and if it were to be divided into `methods' the choice would be pretty arbitrary; why does this have to be called a method when it is simply a round block; all successful ringing should be round blocks and there should be no necessity for them to contain leads or methods.

A band that rings such a true block would normally want to record it in the methods library. It makes sense for the methods library to house methods, as opposed to other things.

There is a valid argument for detaching methods from peals, etc, and we’ve debated this (as has the Ringing Theory group). The consensus is that detachment leads to unnecessary complexity. There is valuable simplicity in using methods (together with calls and cover bells) as the building blocks for all performances.

We also shouldn’t (and haven’t in the framework) stipulate that all successful ringing should be round blocks – that’s prescription not description. If a band chooses to ring a non-round block (such as the bobs-only 5039 Grandsire Triples), the only requirement is that they disclose in the report that the performance wasn’t a round block.

We need honesty in ringing and if you ring a round block of 24 changes call it that, it can have a name if you want but it's a round block not a method, a method is simply a special case of a round block.

As before, naming it means adding it to the methods library, which, logic dictates, should contain methods. And most ringers ringing a round block of 24 changes would think of themselves as ringing a method, having learnt the method’s blue line, etc.

A few specific points:

Rows: This definition has no connection with actual ringing and might be suitable from a compositional point of view, but not a practical ringing perspective. A definition such as `A row is a sequence in which each of the participating bells rings once, and only once, all at the same stroke.' According to the definition given there no reference to where this sequence may occur so 531 at handstroke followed by 246 at backstroke would be a row.

This is intentional. We’re trying to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If a band wants to ring rows with odd-numbered bells on one stroke and even-numbered bells on the other stroke, we’re not trying to prevent them. The current Decisions also don’t preclude this.

However, your comment has brought to light that we don’t have a disclosure requirement for such ringing. We’ve therefore added an item to the Performance Norms section (6.C.2) asking for disclosure if every row in a performance didn’t have all the bells ringing at the same stroke.

Rounds: The numbers refer to pitch so why not say `A Row in which the bells are ordered from the highest pitch to the lowest pitch'

It’s explained in the definition for Row that bells are numbered according to pitch. Given this, it seems better not to refer to pitch again in the definition of Rounds, but instead to refer to the now-established numbering of bells. Rounds is usually depicted in writing using bell numbers.

Rounds also means the repeated ringing of this row.

Yes, this term has more than one use, as do many ringing terms. Ringing rounds is outside the scope of method ringing, so we don’t think the framework needs to refer to rounds ringing per se. The definition of True shows how opening rounds and closing rounds traditionally bookend a method ringing performance.

Change: Again the definition has no real connection with practical ringing. Most ringers would understand that a change is the transition from ringing in one order to a different order. Thus the definition of a change should be something similar to 'A Change is the transition from ringing one row to a different one at the next stroke'. The identity change is a purely mathematical concept, and alien to practical ringing where it is known as a repeated row.

This isn’t correct. E.g., touches of Doubles are sometimes rung using a Single with place notation 12345. This call can be used to turn a 120 of Doubles into a 240 where every possible row appears twice, once at handstroke and once at backstroke. Experience has shown that most of the time, ringers don’t notice the same row has been rung twice in succession, and they don’t think that they weren’t engaged in method ringing. The identity change clearly affects truth, but nothing more. And again, we want to be descriptive not prescriptive -- if bands choose to ring the identity change, we want the framework to have terminology that can describe this.

The definition `adjacent change' is a made-up one which will be confusing to many people as it could easily be mistaken for adjacent rows.

We expect most ringers will continue to use the existing term ‘change’ in relation to everyday ringing, and that’s by design – we don’t want to impose new terms on ringers unnecessarily (nor would we succeed). Using the more precise terms of adjacent change, identity change and jump change (which are the three sub-categories of change) will only be needed in more advanced situations.

Also, the Decisions and the framework both use the term ‘consecutive’ when referring to adjacent rows.

I don't think it necessary but think the basic rules for normal change ringing should be included (note this does not preclude other types of ringing but defines a normal standard)

There will never be agreement on where to draw the dividing line for normal. 100 years of CC Decisions experience shows this.

Each bell rings once and only one in each row. In changes no bell may move more than one place at a time.

This rules out jump changes. If bands choose to ring jump changes, as occasionally they do, we want the framework to be able to describe this. For those who don’t want to read about such performances, the framework ensures performance reports make clear when jump changes were used so that readers can ignore these performances.

Methods and Blocks: I think the definitions are wrong and completely change the accepted meanings of several of these terms. A Block is a general term of a series of more than one changes.

That’s only one of the uses of block. E.g. round block refers to rows. We’ve noted in 3.D.1 that block has more than one meaning, and the framework’s use of block isn’t intended to preclude any other use.

There are several types of block, for instance a round block, a lead, a division, a part of a peal composition. The definition of a method as a sequence of changes all at the same stage could be anything;

This is by design. There’s no practical way to limit the definition of a method that doesn’t also rule out sensible cases.

The characteristics of a method are (i) it is a round block of changes, (ii) it is divisible in to equal parts and (iii) it does not contain any calls. Your definition does not meet any of these criteria so is clearly wrong. I will say no more as I think the whole framework needs to total rethink to reconnect with the historic definitions of change ringing and not simply coin a series of terms, which may be relevant to the theory of ringing, but really have no relevance to the normal ringing done in our bell towers.

(i) All fixed sequences of changes will produce a round block if the sequence is rung enough times. The framework defines a plain course of a method in this way. The framework defines a method in terms of a plain lead rather than a plain course. This is to give consistency with what appears in the methods library for each method (the place notation for a plain lead).

(ii) As noted above, we don’t see any justification for preventing a method with a one-lead plain course from being a method. The alternative treatments are worse.

(iii) We agree a method doesn’t contain any calls. The definition of a call makes clear that a call modifies a method, so it should be clear that a method by itself doesn’t contain any calls. Making this point explicitly would lead to circular definitions (the definition of method would use ‘call’ and the definition of call would use ‘method’), which we’ve tried to avoid for obvious reasons. However, we note that the current Decisions say in the definition of a call that a call is not part of the definition of a method, and we don’t have this in the framework. We’ve therefore now added this to our definition of call.

3.B.1. As phrased, this appears to imply that a Row may be missing one or more bells. If this is not the intention why the “no more than once” language rather than a more explicit “in which each bell appears exactly once”?

The problem is that ‘each’ would be undefined – e.g. each bell in England? See FAQ B.27.

3.E.5. As worded 7,007 consecutive Plain Leads of Cambridge Major is a Plain Course (it’s an application of the method’s sequence of change repeatedly, and is a round block). I doubt that this is intended. If it is intended, then I think all methods have a countably infinite set of different plain courses, which would seem surprising.

The definition says ‘… until a Round Block is obtained’, meaning the first occurrence of a round block, which occurs after 7 plain leads. We don’t believe this wording will cause any confusion.

3.E.5. I wonder if it should be made explicit that the whole of the method’s sequence of changes should be applied at each repetition? You could have a method that comes round in the middle of what is commonly considered it’s plain course, and that is arguably “apply its sequence of changes repeatedly until a round block is obtained.” I think this could be fixed by say something like “applying all of a static method’s sequence of changes” or something like that.

This is covered in the technical comments. In general, we’ve tried to keep edge case complexity out of the main definitions.

3.F.1. The strict wording of this seems a bit ambiguous, as in normal conversation “replace X with different X” might well be construed to imply at least one X thingie is being replaced by at least one different X thingie. Making it explicit with “zero or more changes” in both places might be worthwhile. Yes, the Further explanation does make this clear, but section 1.C implies the further explanations are not normative.

We did have “zero or more” language in this definition at one stage, but took it out on the basis that it was overly-technical (which we’ve been criticized for). In general, we’ve attempted to keep the definitions as straightforward as possible, and use the further explanations to add clarity where needed.

3.F.2. Is there a “calls library” yet?

Not yet. 3.F.2 has now been updated to refer to Appendix F.4, which explains this.

3.G.1 and 3.G.2. I don’t think, as currently worded, this works as desired. Consider two consecutive standard extents, one of Cambridge Minor and one of London Minor. I believe the intention of 3.G.2 is that this not be considered spliced. However, the wording of 3.G.1 certainly allows this to be a single composition of length 1,440, which is spliced.

Even if your two standard Minor extents are considered to be a single composition of 1440 changes, the change of method occurs at rounds (or more precisely, the same row as the initial row). The 1440 composition is therefore not spliced.

3.H.2. Consider the little minor method with place notation 5.1.5.3.5.3x4x6. Now consider a touch of it spliced with a doubles method, with half lead changes of method in the minor, where only the first half-lead of the minor method is ever rung. Does not 3.H.2. describe this as “variable cover” since the changes of method do, in principle, affect the tenor, even though in the end it never leaves 6ths place?

Agreed. We’ve now added the following further explanation: “Note that a Composition is not considered Variable Cover if a Cover Bell is only affected by a change to a higher Stage Method such that the (former) Cover Bell is now one of the bells on which the Method's Changes operate.”

3.J.1. The further explanation contradicts the definitions: it says methods and compositions can be extents, but that is not possible — an extent is a set of rows, while methods and compositions are sets of changes. Note that this is not about order, which is the point the further explanation is trying to make, it is about what are the constituent bits of the sets/sequences under consideration.

The further explanation doesn’t say that a method or composition can be an extent – as you say, methods and compositions are sequences of changes, whereas an extent is a set of rows. The explanation says, “… when used with a Method or Composition (e.g. an Extent of Plain Bob Minor), this generally refers to an ordered Extent generated using the Changes of Plain Bob Minor (and any necessary Calls).” I.e. “used with a Method or Composition”, not “is a Method or Composition”.

3.J.3. The technical comment should say “the effective stage of a block all of whose rows are the same” — a block can’t be comprised of just rows, as it is explicitly defined as a composite of both changes and rows.

Agreed – updated.

3.J.4, second sentence. Consider a method, the last change of whose plain lead is an identity change. By splicing this with another weird method you could easily come up with a “true,” in the colloquial sense, MEB in two different ways, one including the last row and one excluding it. It’s making my head hurt trying to figure out exactly how this relates to this the second sentence of 3.J.4, but I suspect it may not be quite what is intended or desirable.

We think this works as is. In your example, the composition will determine whether the last row is included or excluded. Truth is then determined from the block produced by the composition (including consideration of whether or not the block is round).

4.D.1. It seems odd that the triples method 1.127 is classified as plain, but 1.127,125 is not; in fact, the latter method has no classification.

We've revisited how stationary bells are classified, and in the end decided to make them all Treble Place, regardless of lead length. There's nothing 'plain' about a method with a stationary bell, and Treble Place seems the most fitting class for these (Treble is a proxy for hunt bell, and Place, as in 'making places', is what a stationary bell does).

4.D.6. It seems odd that you can’t have a Little Jump method. For example, it is pretty obvious how to construct Cunning Little Vixen Little Treble Jump Major, is it not? Or maybe we just let the name of that be “Cunning Little Vixen Little Treble”? I guess with Jump stuff being so unexplored it makes sense to leave things as simple as possible, but it might be worth a note or something, I dunno.

We’ve had lots of debate on this topic. For now, hunters that have jump changes are classified as Hunters in the classification diagram in 4.A.1, but are not members of any of the sub-classes below Hunter. They are also members of the Jump class. But as you say, there may be a case for enabling hunters with jump changes be part of other hunter sub-classes (e.g. X Jump Surprise Major, Y Jump Little Treble Bob Royal), as well as possibly adding a sub-class where the hunt bell jumps (e.g. Cambridge Treble Jump Minor). This is on the list to be revisited in a subsequent version of the framework, and we've now included a note in the hunter sub-class explanations indicating this.

5.A.1 Further explanation: the link is rather oddly structured: the whole sentence “The Methods Library can be accessed here” is blue and looks like a link, but it is only a word “here” that is a link — for a long time I thought there was no link at all, and only stumbled over the last word being a link accidentally, so I suspect it will confuse others, too.

Agreed. It's a little garish, but for now we've made all framework hyperlinks green. To be revisited in a subsequent version of the framework.

5.A.1 More on the link: it is odd that the page is headed “Compositions Library,” when what you believe you’ve been directed to is the “Central Council Methods Library.” In fact, those verbatim words do not appear anywhere on the page that is the target of the link.

Agreed. We’ve now changed this link to https://methods.cccbr.org.uk.

5.B.1 A strict reading of “The Class Descriptor is formed by concatenating…” would appear to imply that the class descriptor of, say, a little surprise method, is “LittleSurprise” rather than “Little Surprise”. Things are concatenated with spaces added as necessary. And, of course, when adding something that’s blank, no additional space is added.

That’s the computing use of concatenate. We think the more general dictionary definition “linked together” makes clear what is intended here.

5.C.2 and similar sections: it would be nice if these cross references to appendices were links.

Agreed. However, there are over 100 cross references in the framework and we thought it would be too difficult to manage all these as manual hyperlinks. This is on the list to revisit in a subsequent version of the framework, ideally finding a way to automate the management of cross reference hyperlinks.

5.C.3 should “would result in its Method Title being the same” instead be “would result in their Method Titles being the same”?

Agreed – updated.

5.D.1 it seems surprising that the Further explanation points at the Methods Library rather than the Variations Library. Perhaps some redistribution of the further explanations of this section and following is warranted?

Agreed, the methods library reference was included in 5.D.1 in error. Now updated.

5.D.2 Is there a Variations Library yet? Or a Calls library?

Not yet. 5.D.2 has now been updated to refer to Appendix F.4, which explains this.

5.D.3 Further explanation. When it says “At Stages other than Doubles, Method Names are independent of the Call or Calls used.” While this was mandated in the past (and I see no reason to change it), it does *not* appear to be mandated in this framework. Again, a further explanation does not appear to be considered normative according to 1.C. If this is to be a requirement, it needs to be stated somewhere else, I think. And if it is a requirement, “currently only records Doubles Variations” seems an odd way to phrase it, since there are no other kinds.

We’ve flagged the question of variations at higher stages for future consideration. There are many performances of April Day Triples on BellBoard, and also one of April Day Caters, and perhaps these should be recorded in the Variations Library. Hence why we used “currently” in 5.D.3. But in light of your comment, the further explanation for 5.D.3 doesn’t add anything particularly useful, so we’ve now removed it.

5.E.2 In the FAQ (C.1.) it states that you can indeed have variations that cannot be rung to an extent, but need an MEB. But this section appears to prohibit naming such a variation, as it requires an extent to name it. Something’s fishy.

5.E.2 only requires the naming performance to contain an extent of the new variation – i.e. all rows of the extent occurring somewhere in the performance. This could be achieved through a single extent rounds block, but also through an MEB (multi-extent block).

6.A.1 and 6.A.2 These sections seem to be trying to have it both ways. The normative text is loose, yet the further explanations seem to be trying to say something normative. This doesn’t seem right. If what the further explanation states really is required, it needs to be stated in the definitions, right?

Technically you’re probably correct, but this is an area where we thought we needed to take a pragmatic approach. We consider the further explanations to be ‘best practice’ guides on how to report performances. Ultimately ringers and The Ringing World will decide how to report performances, so it seems of limited effect for the framework to try and mandate a set of requirements in this area.

6.A.1 further explanation b)4. This is wholly new, right? Presumably it only applied to new reports? Is there a reason for adding this, which has never been viewed as necessary in the past?

We included Mixed as an optional term because so many performances are reported on BellBoard as Mixed.

7.A.2 You may recall that some years ago Rod Pipe (I think it was he) tried to arrange an extent of Plain Bob Caters, to be rung by several teams of ringers in relays. It never came off, but if it did now, this section states that it would not be considered a record length. That seems a shame.

We think it’s important for records to be broken under a consistent set of conditions. It wouldn’t be fair to the band that rang (not in relay) the existing record length of Plain Bob Caters if their record could be broken by a relay performance where each individual ringer may ring fewer changes than in the existing record. There may be a case for a separate category of records for relay performances, but we think this can be considered in a subsequent version of the framework, or be considered if such a performance is rung.

8.A.1, further explanation: the list of recognized extension processes is actually appendix D, not appendix B as stated here.

Thanks – now corrected.

8.A.1 further explanation: “in the case of a static method, the structure of the method is its place notation”. This seems overly constricting. While certainly the blessed extension stuff of the CCCBR-past has always been place notation based, it would seem plausible that even for static methods a different sort of scheme might be adopted in the future. I don’t have anything specific in mind, but it seems one of those areas where clever people in the future could push boundaries, and we don’t want to impede them needlessly.

Perhaps, though it’s difficult to imagine a method that falls within the definition of a static method not having a structure that can be represented using place notation. Since the new Central Council governing structure will enable the framework to be updated more efficiently than was possible with the previous Decisions, we believe your point here can be addressed effectively in the future if a problem arises.

8.C.1 further explanation. Some sections point folks at methods@cccbr.org.uk, and others at technical@cccbr.org.uk. Is this deliberate? If so, what is the algorithm for deciding what goes to which? Would not a single entry point be a better approach, even if someone then has to route requests as appropriate?

We’ve now settled on the following two email addresses for the framework: methods@cccbr.org.uk and records@cccbr.org.uk. The reason for having two email addresses is to separate responses based upon the relevant function – methods or records. Under the new CC structure, enquiries to methods@cccbr.org.uk will be handled by the Technical and Taxonomy workgroup, and enquiries to records@cccbr.org.uk will be handled by the History and Archive workgroup. However, this separation would be useful even if these functions were in the same workgroup.

And, finally, just re-iterating something I wrote to Tim a month ago: I am gob-smacked at how well this turned out. As I think you know, I was skeptical, but at this point I’m really impressed. I may have hoped for something shorter, but that hope really wasn’t practical, and I think the result really is a huge improvement and will serve the future well. I think you folks have done a great job. Thank you!

Thanks – much appreciated.